About the Race, if you plan to implement it, I've looked at how the ATP plans to apply it this year.

In the Rankings FAQ, they write :

Quote:

The Emirates ATP Rankings Race To London include points earned in 2013 plus points earned at the 2012 Davis Cup final and late-season 2012 Challengers and Futures played after the 2012 Barclays ATP World Tour Finals.

And actually it's possible to look at a player's "ranking race for London"'s breakdown, which confirms that they did indeed start from the challengers played during the week of the Davis cup final (12.11.2012), that is after the WTF week : they didn't count the challengers taking place during the WTF (starting on the 05.11.2012).

he has 170 Race points, which includes 125 points for Helsinki (week starting 12.11.2012) and 45 points for Doha, but doesn't count his 40 points from Bratislava (week starting 05.11.2012).

I checked for Matteo Viola : it's the same.

As for futures, they start with the futures starting 05.11.2012, that is the ones which did count first in the ATP rankings from the 19.11.2012 just like the first challengers they count (starting 12.11.2012) : they are coherent for that (I checked that by looking at Chase Buchanan's Race breakdown : http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/P...t=rb&d=n&ytd=y

However, it's not completely coherent with the idea that the Race is supposed to be 100% coherent with the rankings qualifying for the WTF, that is the ones on the 4th of november 2013.

For that, they should have counted one more week of challengers and futures, that is they should have counted the challengers starting 05.11.2012 which took place during the WTF (like the one in Bratislava won by Rosol), and also the futures starting 29.10.2012.

They didn't. Probably they didn't want to introduce confusion with the fact that the WTF 2012 which took place the same week as those challengers will not count for the qualifying for the WTF 2013 as far as it's concerned, because it's an exception which drops out of the rankings after 51 weeks (except if they changed the rules for the challengers of that week but it doesn't seem so : in the rankings they are still written as dropping on 11.11.2013)

By the way, http://live-tennis.eu/race had been more coherent with that qualifying for London, counting the challengers starting 05.11.2012 (but not the futures from previous week which they should have also counted to be perfectly coherent).

__________________
useless old guy

Last edited by duong : 01-08-2013 at 09:42 AM.
Reason: It was not coherent with year-end rankings 2012 on the 19th of november : it should have been the 12th of november

And actually it's possible to look at a player's "ranking race for London"'s breakdown.

This is brilliant. The ATP site may be getting a lot of things wrong, but they do do something right every now and then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by duong

By the way, http://live-tennis.eu/race had been more coherent with that qualifying for London, counting the challengers starting 05.11.2012 (but not the futures from previous week which they should have also counted to be perfectly coherent).

That site makes way too many mistakes. For a almost a day, they had given each of Murray, Tipsarevic and Gasquet 500 points for their win.

Shouldn't all three of them be tied for first right now? I believe there are only three tie break rules and the three of them are equal in all three.

If you look in the xls files created at the last automated process, you can see the progress being made with the Race. All the players with scorings after November 12 have been processed. Integration into the live update is next.

Why do you not have Gilles Simon as having WD from Sydney, or was that already there?

Because rankings-wise, he didn't play at all. The withdrawals are taken in only if there are consequences to the player's rankings, as in 0-point penalties. Retirements are counted in because the player is one of the 32 on the Main Draw, but withdrawals leading to Lucky Losers are taken out completely. Thank you for asking.

Because rankings-wise, he didn't play at all. The withdrawals are taken in only if there are consequences to the player's rankings, as in 0-point penalties. Retirements are counted in because the player is one of the 32 on the Main Draw, but withdrawals leading to Lucky Losers are taken out completely. Thank you for asking.

Quote:

Orange - The player has retired from any match, or before the tournament started.

About the Race, if you plan to implement it, I've looked at how the ATP plans to apply it this year.

In the Rankings FAQ, they write :

And actually it's possible to look at a player's "ranking race for London"'s breakdown, which confirms that [b]they did indeed start from the challengers played during the week of the Davis cup final (12.11.2012), that is after the WTF week : they didn't count the challengers taking place during the WTF (starting on the 05.11.2012.

he has 170 Race points, which includes 125 points for Helsinki (week starting 12.11.2012) and 45 points for Doha, but doesn't count his 40 points from Bratislava (week starting 05.11.2012).

I checked for Matteo Viola : it's the same.

As for futures, they start with the futures starting 05.11.2012, that is the ones which did count first in the ATP rankings from the 19.11.2012 just like the first challengers they count (starting 12.11.2012) : they are coherent for that (I checked that by looking at Chase Buchanan's Race breakdown : http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/P...t=rb&d=n&ytd=y

However, it's not completely coherent with the idea that the Race is supposed to be 100% coherent with the rankings qualifying for the WTF, that is the ones on the 4th of november 2013.

For that, they should have counted one more week of challengers and futures, that is they should have counted the challengers starting 05.11.2012 which took place during the WTF (like the one in Bratislava won by Rosol), and also the futures starting 29.10.2012.

They didn't. Probably they didn't want to introduce confusion with the fact that the WTF 2012 which took place the same week as those challengers will not count for the qualifying for the WTF 2013 as far as it's concerned, because it's an exception which drops out of the rankings after 51 weeks (except if they changed the rules for the challengers of that week but it doesn't seem so : in the rankings they are still written as dropping on 11.11.2013)

By the way, http://live-tennis.eu/race had been more coherent with that qualifying for London, counting the challengers starting 05.11.2012 (but not the futures from previous week which they should have also counted to be perfectly coherent).

I understand your points and agree but it would have been somewhat unfair because those players(playing Futures or Challangers) would have had one more week to gain points.

Of course, we all know none of those players have a real chance to qualify for the WTF 2013. So, it wouldn't have mattered even if they did count them.

I find this to be a very strange rule indeed, why not have it for either all or none, instead of just some.

Majors too.

It is for Grand Slams as well.

I find the 0-point penalty rule rather volatile too. That is because if a player withdraws without mentioning a good reason from a ATP 500 event, he may be penalized and I have no way of predicting that.

So, in case of ATP 500 events, it's not just for missing the commitment.

I find this to be a very strange rule indeed, why not have it for either all or none, instead of just some.

Majors too.

Grand slams and Masters 1000 tournaments are mandatory and the fact that if you are allowed to enter them and you don't, you get zero point and can't replace it for another result, is the absolute key of that mandatory character. There's still a flexibility that actually players can indeed decide to skip them if they really want, but anyway, they will get those zero points and not replace them, which guarantees that this system still keeps being "mandatory" in a way.

And I think this mandatory character (which top-players asked for during the US Open 1988) is an absolute key of the visibility and quality of the Tour. In the 70s and 80s when it didn't exist, top-players could choose whatever tournament they wanted, especially for money reasons, and it's one of the main reasons why top-players seldom played against each other and why the rankings were not reliable and not transparent in that time (also the fact that the rankings were calculated with an "average" from less tournaments and the use of the bonus for wins against highly ranked players).

They tried to make something similar for ATP500 tournaments because they asked those tournaments a lot, in terms of increasing the prize money especially (they didn't ask so much to ATP250 tournaments hence the no-obligation there), then they needed to guarantee them some top-players participation, but it's a far less strict obligation.